perform/deception and spells

[MrStabby]

Seeing the other thread about trickster clerics and counterspell got me thinking...

Would anyone allow a deception or perform check to bluff casting a spell to draw out counterspells and other reactions?

[Unoriginal]

I would allow a deception check, certainly.

[BiPolar]

Kind of a neat idea, but I'd also expect a spellcaster to know the difference between actual magic and being started and fake magic.

If you want to fake it, it might be disadvantage on the caster and advantage on the countercaster rolls to accommodate for that. Another thought is to allow you to get 'closer' to the magic, but that also might involve actually casting when you didn't mean to and I'm not sure how to get that to work :)

But it would also take up an action (as a real spell does), so the action economy question is it worth it to 'fake' a cast to 'maybe' get a counterspell out of the enemy and use up one of their spell slots?

On the flipside, if a spell isn't actually being cast, is the counterspell reaction even possible?

[Vogonjeltz]

Seeing the other thread about trickster clerics and counterspell got me thinking...

Would anyone allow a deception or perform check to bluff casting a spell to draw out counterspells and other reactions?

Why wouldn't you just cast a cantrip? It's not like they know what you're casting.

[Breashios]

Why wouldn't you just cast a cantrip? It's not like they know what you're casting.

A lot of DMs, myself included, allow an arcana check, easy if they have the spell in question, fairly easy if they have seen it cast frequently (a party member uses the spell), moderate if they've seen it cast regularly in public, hard if they are familiar with it, etc. Only if they have never seen it before will I say the character has no opportunity to make a check. (They can also tell me what spells they are training for the next level, but that will lock them in to those.)

Yes, I understand it may not be RAW, but it makes the game more enjoyable for the players in our group and a lot of groups I know do something similar.

Its not like when an NPC monster has Counterspell, the players say, "I'm casting a spell. Do you want to counterspell it?" They just say they are casting "Fireball". This way when I counter it they understand that the NPC has or has seen that spell often enough to know it is enough of a threat to use their reaction for it.

[Breashios]

Seeing the other thread about trickster clerics and counterspell got me thinking...

Would anyone allow a deception or perform check to bluff casting a spell to draw out counterspells and other reactions?

If a player wanted to try, I'd allow it, but with the same kind of rules I use for the arcana check. They'd have to actually know the spell they are trying to pretend to cast or have seen the spell cast regularly. If not, they'd be at some penalty or at disadvantage to attempt.

I think with action economy being what it is, most players would not even try to do it, but if the circumstances were unique enough to make it worthwhile...why not?

[Vogonjeltz]

A lot of DMs, myself included, allow an arcana check, easy if they have the spell in question, fairly easy if they have seen it cast frequently (a party member uses the spell), moderate if they've seen it cast regularly in public, hard if they are familiar with it, etc. Only if they have never seen it before will I say the character has no opportunity to make a check. (They can also tell me what spells they are training for the next level, but that will lock them in to those.)

Yes, I understand it may not be RAW, but it makes the game more enjoyable for the players in our group and a lot of groups I know do something similar.

Its not like when an NPC monster has Counterspell, the players say, "I'm casting a spell. Do you want to counterspell it?" They just say they are casting "Fireball". This way when I counter it they understand that the NPC has or has seen that spell often enough to know it is enough of a threat to use their reaction for it.

Alternatively, a lot of DMs, myself included, just follow the rules which don't do any of that.

It's not a contest, so I don't see any justification for allowing a check off turn. In which case, the point stands, better to use actually cast a spell (a cantrip) than to try and pretend to cast a spell using the same action.

[RSP]

I think I'm the one that gave the idea in the other thread. My thinking was: if my character knows a spell (for example Fireball), but is out of 3rd and higher slots, and we're facing a caster, it would be a great way to waste the enemy caster's slots and reaction (there are other casters in my group) on my character pretending to cast Fireball.

My character knows all the components and as such anyone watching would say "oh crap they're about to cast Fireball!"

Just an idea I had and wanted to try at some point.

[Naanomi]

I could see a good deception check fooling someone into thinking you are throwing a Fireball when you are really throwing a Firebolt

[Breashios]

I could see a good deception check fooling someone into thinking you are throwing a Fireball when you are really throwing a Firebolt

The problem is, according to Vogonjeltz, deception is pointless, because the character that would want to counterspell never knows what you are casting in any case at all. There is no chance to know what is being cast; no perception, no arcana, no nothing that allows you to do that by RAW.

Those of us that approach combat with more character perspective than mechanical discipline would agree with you. But I guess, based on Vogonjeltz post, I would recommend checking with your own DM to see if it were even possible.

This does make me wonder though. Can anyone describe an actual in-play counterspell as it was used in a campaign when there was no chance to tell the difference between a cantrip and a Cone of Cold for instance? I think while watching the podcasts I've heard the employees of Wizards run their games saying the enemy character casts some specific spell, so I think that if the PCs in that case had counterspell they would have been allowed to choose to use it, knowing what the spell was. I can't think of anyone I know of actually doing it the way Vogonjeltz does, although I believe I have seen that ruling on Sage Advice.

[Naanomi]

I tend to (in my own game, completely a houserule) allow people who can cast a specific spell to recognize that spell as it is cast without a check

[Tetrasodium]

To all the people saying "the opponent wouldn't know what spell it was". police(and others) shoot people all the time because bags of m&m's+iced tea looked like a gun or whatever. If the cleric just burned his last slot capable of casting X & wants to get someone's attention by pretending to cast it again or pretend to cast a spell entirely inappropriate like earthquake inside the basement of the palace to play chicken with someone... it could be reasonable.

[BiPolar]

To all the people saying "the opponent wouldn't know what spell it was". police(and others) shoot people all the time because bags of m&m's+iced tea looked like a gun or whatever. If the cleric just burned his last slot capable of casting X & wants to get someone's attention by pretending to cast it again or pretend to cast a spell entirely inappropriate like earthquake inside the basement of the palace to play chicken with someone... it could be reasonable.

I'm not sure I buy the "people make mistakes" bit as much for a world of heroes :) But I do think it'd be an interesting use of an action IF you had no actual slots to perform that action. I think you could only 'pretend' to cast something you actually know, but the spellcaster who would be countering it still doesn't have to take the bait. He's been fighting your spells all battle, one more isn't gonna kill him and if he can choose to attack with his slot, he may rather do that. The assumption that the countercaster WILL counter is a false one. They may do so, it's up to the DM and how intelligently they're playing the NPC.

And in my own mind, I see some effect of the power of the casting (this is not canon, just my mind canon). A caster who can counter is very likely going to know the difference between casting and fake casting. It's the difference between a non-caster going through vsm motions and a caster actually using the weave.

[Tetrasodium]

I'm not sure I buy the "people make mistakes" bit as much for a world of heroes :) But I do think it'd be an interesting use of an action IF you had no actual slots to perform that action. I think you could only 'pretend' to cast something you actually know, but the spellcaster who would be countering it still doesn't have to take the bait. He's been fighting your spells all battle, one more isn't gonna kill him and if he can choose to attack with his slot, he may rather do that. The assumption that the countercaster WILL counter is a false one. They may do so, it's up to the DM and how intelligently they're playing the NPC.

And in my own mind, I see some effect of the power of the casting (this is not canon, just my mind canon). A caster who can counter is very likely going to know the difference between casting and fake casting. It's the difference between a non-caster going through vsm motions and a caster actually using the weave.

To be fair, we are talking about a cleric of [u]trickery[u]. Yea it's probably only going to work once & be less effective if you have a reputation for bluffing it; but dead men tell no tales.

[BiPolar]

To be fair, we are talking about a cleric of [u]trickery[u]. Yea it's probably only going to work once & be less effective if you have a reputation for bluffing it; but dead men tell no tales.

I didn't realize we were talking about a Cleric of Trickery, I thought this thread was a more general one. But even then, I don't think you can "fake" the weave. Although I'd consider using Minor Illusion for that...hmmm...but then you're using casting minor illusion and NOT the spell you're trying to 'fake'.

I dunno, I still keep coming back to A)action economy means it's better to actually do something, B)the counterspeller you're hoping to bait will actually take it and not keep doing what they've been doing - which is trying to kill you and your friends, C)do you want the DM doing this to your characters? and D)the mechanics of actually 'faking' actual magic.

[RSP]

I think RAW, the only thing that identifies a person casting a spell is the components, that is the V, S, and/or M.

So, again just going by RAW, the only way to tell if someone is casting is through recognizing these characteristic.

Certainly, some in-game-worlds/tables could houserule other noticeable effects while casting (such as the caster glows while manipulating the Weave), but I don't think these things exist in the RAW.

Therefore, someone who knows the casting of a spell could, in theory (and in practice with a Deception roll, perhaps), replicate the entire casting as it would appear to anyone on the lookout for such a thing, such as an enemy caster with Counterspell. The only difference would be not actually using a slot to cast.

[BiPolar]

I think RAW, the only thing that identifies a person casting a spell is the components, that is the V, S, and/or M.

So, again just going by RAW, the only way to tell if someone is casting is through recognizing these characteristic.

Certainly, some in-game-worlds/tables could houserule other noticeable effects while casting (such as the caster glows while manipulating the Weave), but I don't think these things exist in the RAW.

Therefore, someone who knows the casting of a spell could, in theory (and in practice with a Deception roll, perhaps), replicate the entire casting as it would appear to anyone on the lookout for such a thing, such as an enemy caster with Counterspell. The only difference would be not actually using a slot to cast.

There isn't a RAW deception on spellcasting at all ;) This definitely falls into the area of DM fiat and I think you need to look at the whole picture when figuring how/if this would work from each angle. But again, even if this worked the issues I presented above are still there.

But also think about it in this way: You have been trying to run me over all night from a stopped/engine off car. Each time, you've turned the engine on and come after me. This time, you've run out of gas. You are turning the engine over, but nothing is happening. I can tell the difference. (is this a horrible analogy? If so, disregard and whip me with a wet noodle.)

[Tetrasodium]

I think RAW, the only thing that identifies a person casting a spell is the components, that is the V, S, and/or M.

So, again just going by RAW, the only way to tell if someone is casting is through recognizing these characteristic.

Certainly, some in-game-worlds/tables could houserule other noticeable effects while casting (such as the caster glows while manipulating the Weave), but I don't think these things exist in the RAW.

Therefore, someone who knows the casting of a spell could, in theory (and in practice with a Deception roll, perhaps), replicate the entire casting as it would appear to anyone on the lookout for such a thing, such as an enemy caster with Counterspell. The only difference would be not actually using a slot to cast.

Nah, by raw it clearly falls under this:

Spoiler: PHB175

Show

V a r i a n t : S k i l l s w i t h D i f f e r e n t A b i l i t i e s
Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a
specific kind of ability check. Proficiency in Athletics,
for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In som e
situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably
apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the DM
might ask for a check using an unusual com bination of
ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can
apply a proficiency to a different check. For example,
if you have to swim from an offshore island to the
mainland, your DM might call for a Constitution check
to see if you have the stamina to make it that far. In this
case, your DM might allow you to apply your proficiency
in Athletics and ask for a Constitution (Athletics) check.
S o if you’re proficient in Athletics, you apply your
proficiency bonus to the Constitution check just as you
would normally do for a Strength (Athletics) check.
Similarly, when your half-orc barbarian uses a display
of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might
ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though
Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma.

The "action economy" could be covered within RAW too:

Spoiler: same page

Show

Pa s s iv e C h e c k s
A passive check is a special kind of ability check that
doesn’t involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent
the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as
searching for secret doors over and over again, or can
be used when the DM wants to secretly determine
whether the characters succeed at som ething without
rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.
Here’s how to determine a character’s total for a
passive check:

10 + all modifiers that normally apply to the check
If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For
disadvantage, subtract 5. The game refers to a passive
check total as a score.
For example, if a 1st-level character has a W isdom of
15 and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive
W isdom (Perception) score of 14.
The rules on hiding in the “Dexterity” section below
rely on passive checks, as do the exploration rules
in chapter 8.

5th is a lot more flexible than older versions. it doesn't need a specific way to do it because there are lots of reasonably ways to identify a spell being cast.

[Mellack]

Would it even do anything if you did deceive them? If no spell is being cast, there is no valid target for counterspell. With no valid target, you have another level of DM choice as to whether it uses the spell slot, and if it uses their reaction.

[Tetrasodium]

Would it even do anything if you did deceive them? If no spell is being cast, there is no valid target for counterspell. With no valid target, you have another level of DM choice as to whether it uses the spell slot, and if it uses their reaction.

Not unless the whole point was to bluff in a game of chicken or something. While the mechanics for that kind of thing are less well defined than in some other systems, it's something that almost any dm should be able to adjudicate reasonably without much effort

[BiPolar]

Not unless the whole point was to bluff in a game of chicken or something. While the mechanics for that kind of thing are less well defined than in some other systems, it's something that almost any dm should be able to adjudicate reasonably without much effort

Right, but if the spellcaster doesn't care and is willing to risk whatever you may be casting because they're confident that they can save against or not be hurt, they'd rather use their slots to attack you, not try and stop you. Just because you bluff, doesn't mean someone won't call it.

[Tetrasodium]

Right, but if the spellcaster doesn't care and is willing to risk whatever you may be casting because they're confident that they can save against or not be hurt, they'd rather use their slots to attack you, not try and stop you. Just because you bluff, doesn't mean someone won't call it.

Yep, it's risky & there's no guarantee it will work I agree; but it might be enough to distract just enough

Saying there's no chance of a cleric of trickery ever tricking someone in combat is kinda like enemy mages never casting within 5 feet of someone once they take mage slayer/taking disengage action vrs the guy with sentinel/moving across the polearm master equipped guy. Not every encounter is a fight needs to be too the death. Many things will take a reasonable second option if the right door is opened.

[BiPolar]

Yep, it's risky & there's no guarantee it will work I agree; but it might be enough to distract just enough

Saying there's no chance of a cleric of trickery ever tricking someone in combat is kinda like enemy mages never casting within 5 feet of someone once they take mage slayer/taking disengage action vrs the guy with sentinel/moving across the polearm master equipped guy. Not every encounter is a fight needs to be too the death. Many things will take a reasonable second option if the right door is opened.

Definitely not arguing with you on that. It's just a lot of ifs - more than I'm generally willing to gamble on, especially when a caster still has the ability to cast a damage cantrip. I could spend my action trying to bluff, which may or may not be done well and may or may not be called, OR I could try and remove that guy from the list of things that may immediately kill me/my friends.

[RSP]

Right, but if the spellcaster doesn't care and is willing to risk whatever you may be casting because they're confident that they can save against or not be hurt, they'd rather use their slots to attack you, not try and stop you. Just because you bluff, doesn't mean someone won't call it.

True. This comes down to how a DM plays the NPC (though to be fair, most BBEG casters should have plenty of slots to both Counterspell with their Reaction while also using Bonus/Actions to cast offensively; it's not like the BBEG went through a resource depleating dungeon crawl before facing the PCs).

I'd assume an enemy caster with Counterspell, put against a group of PCs with multiple casters, is there, in part, to counter the spells of the casters in the PC group. There aren't many better uses of a Reaction than shutting down someone else's spell.

Now assuming the enemy caster doesn't know which PC casters have expended what resources, this could be a great tactic to use up not just a 3rd level slot, but more importantly, the Reaction of the enemy caster, in order to have a different PC get a spell off without having to chance Counterspell.

For example:
Group of 4 PCs: Bard, Cleric, Rogue, Fighter.

Bard spends his last 3rd+ slot casting Fireball to take out the BBEG Wizard's minions (in order to clear a path for the Rogue and Fighter), damaging the mob but not taking them out. The BBEG Wizard uses their reaction to Counterspell the Cleric.

The next round, knowing the BBEG Wizard has Counterspell (and that the Cleric has more high level slots available), the Bard pretends to cast another Fireball, as the mob of scrubs is pretty damaged and a second one would make a clear path for the Fighter and Rogue to get to the BBEG Wizard. The BBEG Wizard is aware of this as well, so it's absolutely RP-fitting for them to think "I better stop Fireball #2 from taking out my cronies/meat shields, and rely on my saves verse the Cleric."

Again, just a fun and creative idea I had that I liked. I've never come across a chance to use it in game, though. And, as stated in my first post regarding this, it's very much DM dependent, not just in RPing the NPC casting Counterspell, but also in whether or not Counterspell can even be cast if the caster doesn't see someone actually casting a spell (the requirement to use the Reaction to cast Counterspell).

[BiPolar]

True. This comes down to how a DM plays the NPC (though to be fair, most BBEG casters should have plenty of slots to both Counterspell with their Reaction while also using Bonus/Actions to cast offensively; it's not like the BBEG went through a resource depleating dungeon crawl before facing the PCs).

I'd assume an enemy caster with Counterspell, put against a group of PCs with multiple casters, is there, in part, to counter the spells of the casters in the PC group. There aren't many better uses of a Reaction than shutting down someone else's spell.

Now assuming the enemy caster doesn't know which PC casters have expended what resources, this could be a great tactic to use up not just a 3rd level slot, but more importantly, the Reaction of the enemy caster, in order to have a different PC get a spell off without having to chance Counterspell.

For example:
Group of 4 PCs: Bard, Cleric, Rogue, Fighter.

Bard spends his last 3rd+ slot casting Fireball to take out the BBEG Wizard's minions (in order to clear a path for the Rogue and Fighter), damaging the mob but not taking them out. The BBEG Wizard uses their reaction to Counterspell the Cleric.

The next round, knowing the BBEG Wizard has Counterspell (and that the Cleric has more high level slots available), the Bard pretends to cast another Fireball, as the mob of scrubs is pretty damaged and a second one would make a clear path for the Fighter and Rogue to get to the BBEG Wizard. The BBEG Wizard is aware of this as well, so it's absolutely RP-fitting for them to think "I better stop Fireball #2 from taking out my cronies/meat shields, and rely on my saves verse the Cleric."

Again, just a fun and creative idea I had that I liked. I've never come across a chance to use it in game, though. And, as stated in my first post regarding this, it's very much DM dependent, not just in RPing the NPC casting Counterspell, but also in whether or not Counterspell can even be cast if the caster doesn't see someone actually casting a spell (the requirement to use the Reaction to cast Counterspell).

One more interesting twist: If you tried to deceive but had no way of letting anyone else in your party know and then the enemy counterspelled you...which was then followed by a counterspell by someone in else in your party. That'd suck. Otherwise, you are metagaming :P

[Vogonjeltz]

The problem is, according to Vogonjeltz, deception is pointless, because the character that would want to counterspell never knows what you are casting in any case at all. There is no chance to know what is being cast; no perception, no arcana, no nothing that allows you to do that by RAW.

Those of us that approach combat with more character perspective than mechanical discipline would agree with you. But I guess, based on Vogonjeltz post, I would recommend checking with your own DM to see if it were even possible.

This does make me wonder though. Can anyone describe an actual in-play counterspell as it was used in a campaign when there was no chance to tell the difference between a cantrip and a Cone of Cold for instance? I think while watching the podcasts I've heard the employees of Wizards run their games saying the enemy character casts some specific spell, so I think that if the PCs in that case had counterspell they would have been allowed to choose to use it, knowing what the spell was. I can't think of anyone I know of actually doing it the way Vogonjeltz does, although I believe I have seen that ruling on Sage Advice.

Actually it's according to the rules, not me. There's no listed way of recognizing a spell:

"Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise." (PHB 204)

More-over, the exact same spell can be cast by two creatures in drastically different ways:

"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion." (PHB 203)

And of course, the use of a focus to replace non-costly magical ingredients (instead of a component pouch) further obscures what spell is being cast.

[Naanomi]

The question is: does counterspell stop the spell from being cast at all, or does it unweave it in the process of resolving? Visually I like the idea of it fizzling the Fireball before it detonates and the like... which would imply someone might 'see what is coming' for a quick counterspell

[Spellbreaker26]

"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion." (PHB 203)

Now, it is still up to individual DMs, but with an arcana check (say, Spell Level +12?) I'd say that someone could identify the spell being used.

[RSP]

Now, it is still up to individual DMs, but with an arcana check (say, Spell Level +12?) I'd say that someone could identify the spell being used.

It appears to be a common enough houserule (I see similar ideas on these threads), and Crawford himself allows limited "knowing" when it come to Counterspell (again, as a houserule), but RAW, there is no way to know what is being cast.

[Breashios]

I am not sure there is anything in RAW, without clarification from the designers, about: Can a character with counterspell have any chance of knowing if a particular spell is being cast by someone else? There might be something else in the core books that does say that, but the quotes given in this thread do not prove that is the case and I have not found any passage in my PHB that indicates that since this thread opened two days ago.

Saying "Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all." is not the same as saying "Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature will not know a particular spell was being cast by the character in plain view that did cast a spell..." From the quotes given it seems like this is an area the game has purposefully given DMs leeway in handling.

The Rule of Fun could lead a particular group to prefer one manner of dealing with this over another. One group may prefer to never know what spells were cast unless they had a noticeable effect. Another group (such as mine) believes it would be unfair to say a wizard casting fireball (without attempting deception of some sort) can not be known to be casting a fireball when he is clearly seen acting and half the party actually have that spell in their list of known spells.